Zoning Bylaw Working Group - Feb 5th, 2020

Presentation by RKG and Harriman. We had three guests this
morning: Ryan from RKG, and Emily and Camillo from Harriman. Harriman
will handle zoning recommendations for this study. Today, they
presented a set of build-out scenarios, based on our current zoning
bylaws.

Ryan presented first. We're entering the future conditions phase of
the project. RKG is looking at market implications and what could
take place in Arlington's industrial districts, given current bylaws.
A future meeting will explore possible zoning changes and their
economic implications.

Emily goes next. Harriman looked at what could be built in
Arlington's Industrial zones under current zoning, using existing
dimensional and use regulations. The first scenarios used 10'
setbacks at a 52' building height. The second scenario used 10'
setbacks and a 39' foot building height. That gives us two
alternatives: with and without height buffers. Most of the I
districts abut R districts, so height buffers would apply.

Camillo walks the group through test fits on four of the Industrial
districts. Generally speaking, they tried to maximize FAR in
consideration of parking requirements.

(1) Forest St. One of the sites in this district has an easement
which requires further research. At 52' building height, the current
site could accommodate 28,000 square feet of light manufacturing and
18,000 square feet of office space. At 39' building height, we'd lose
a floor. Loss of a floor reduces parking requirements, so the
building footprint could be expanded. This configuration would
support 47,000 (?) square feet of space.

These test fits assume a 26' ceiling height for manufacturing spaces
at 13' ceiling height for office space. Where tradeoffs were
necessary, Harriman tried to maximize the manufacturing space.

(2) Park Street. Park street could accommodate 148,000 square feet
with a 52' building height. This site contains a wetland; they tried
to keep the highest parts of the building away from the wetland, to
reduce environmental impact. The parking requirements would require a
lot of asphalt. They considered putting parking under the building,
but are not sure the approach would be economically viable,
particularly for a two story building (the first floor would be
parking, and the second floor would be interior space). The entrance
to this site is not idea for truck turns, and the wetland buffers
force the building to be placed right up against the adjoining
residential districts.

(3) Dudley St. Here, Harriman put the building on one side of the
district, with parking on the other. With two story buildings (26'
for manufacturing and 13' for office), the district could accommodate
about 50,000 square feet. Streets are small in the district, so
loading and unloading trucks would be a challenge.

John Worden says that Dudley street has a number of small businesses
that do things which people need. He thinks nothing that discourages
these small uses should be done here. Ralph Wilmer points out that
these studies were done under current zoning. Ryan points out that
there's little distinction between sidewalk and roadway in this area.
The Dudley street district has three major property owners, and this
test fit assumed combination of the three parcels. Developing each
parcel separately would give a very different outcome.

Steve notes that Cambridge's Alewife District Plan encouraged parking
behind buildings, to hide it from the street view. He asks if the
shape and size of this district would prohibit such arrangements.
Emily and Camillo thought so: aside from the shapes of the lot, there
are streets on either side; there's no way to hide the parking from
both street views.

(4) Mystic Street. The Mystic street industrial district is another
case where parking can't be hidden in the back of a building. At 52'
building height, we might be able to accommodate 8,000 square feet.

Mystic street is a small district that's surrounded by residential
areas. Harriman felt we'd be better off converting the district from
industrial to residential. Steve asked "In other words, this isn't a
very good industrial district"; Emily and Camillo agreed. Christian
asked if converting nearby residential to industrial might improve the
district's potential. Possibly, but parcel assembly could still make
redevelopment challenging.

Harriman's test fit assumed individual parcels, rather than parcel
combination. A small office might be possible, but the site is not
likely to work well for manufacturing.

David Watson asks about the history of the district -- how/why was it
laid out the way it is. No one was sure. The site is likely in a
degraded condition. Redevelopment would likely require remediation,
but that would improve conditions.

Ryan notes that with the exception of Mystic Street, all of these
build scenarios require parcel assembly. That creates challenges, due
to the need to purchase property and hold it until acquisitions are
complete. Trucking would likely have an impact on abutting
residential areas. Wetlands in the Park Ave area are a challenge.

Arlington's Industrial districts don't have good transit access.
We're not near a rail line or major highway. The town doesn't have
any anchor institutions like MIT. That puts us as a disadvantage
relative to nearby communities.

Steve expresses concern about our ability to accommodate growing
companies. A startup often begins with 10--20 people; if all goes
well, there will be 250--500 a few years later. If we aren't able to
accommodate a growing company's need for more space, they'll have to
pack up and leave.

All told, we could add 230,000 square feet at 39' building height, and
274,000 square feet at 52' building height. That's more than the
200,000 square foot need that RKG estimated as Arlington's share of
regional growth.

Steve felt these were sobering figures. Akamai's new building in
Kendall Square is 500,000 square feet. Partner's new headquarters in
Assembly Row is 735,000 square feet. Those are single buildings. For
Arlington, we're talking 200,000-some square feet in the entire town.
But if that's all we have, that's all we have.

Ali Carter points out that one of the main property owners at Park Ave
also own a residential lot that connects the Industrial district with
Mass Ave. That lot could potentially provide access to the site from
Mass ave, and may have been purchased with that in mind.

Charlie thinks it would be good to look at how the flood zone has
changed over time, particularly for sites along the Mill Brook.

Emily points out that manufacturing spaces are often set up with two
loading areas. Raw materials enter at one side of the building and
finished products leave at the other. Ideally, the transportation
system should be able to accommodate that.

Ralph wonders if we should try to keep office space in mind and work
from that.

Steve thinks a data center would be a good use. They have few
employees, don't create a lot of traffic, and could potentially create
a high personal tax base. Emily says that a lot of municipalities are
trying to attract businesses like that: low traffic, low demand for
services, and a good tax basis. Fiber connectivity is a big factor in
attracting data centers.

Emily suggests that we consider whether parking requirements are too
high. She notes that proximity to the bikeway, restaurants, and shops
could be a selling point for employers. David Watson has observed
people walking along the bike path near office buildings in Bedford.
Steve recalls working at the former DEC mill in Maynard; there were
lots of shops and restaurants to visit during lunchtime.

Ryan mentions some of the guardrails that RKG has tried to work with.
They tried to determine the average number of square feet needed for
different industries, but found too much variability. So, they
focused on minimum and maximum square foot requirements instead. Flex
space is in high demand. These are buildings with high ceilings and
less expensive interiors, which can be used for a variety of
purposes. That might be useful for Arlington. The typical entry
point is 800--1000 square feet per space, and 2000--3000 square feet
per building. Flex space tends to be a good hedge against changing
market trends, and the leases tend to be relatively short.

Breweries (without tap rooms) are able to use flex space, and could
fit in as little as 2000 square feet. Adding a restaurant or tap room
raises the space requirement to 4000 square feet or so. Iggys Bakery
in Cambridge has 30,000 square feet, with a small retail component.

Ali says she gets a lot of calls from breweries. They're interested
in getting a foot hold here, but we either don't have they space, or
they're put off by the special permit process, or they'd need food
trucks due our town bylaws on serving alcohol.

Erin Zwirko shares a comment from the Arlington Heights Action
Planning Committee. There's interest in having indoor children's play
spaces. The play space might require a large footprint, but it could
be situated in a building with other adult uses (i.e., places for
parents to go while their kids are playing).

Camillo points out that Arlington requires a special permit for
offices larger than 3000 square feet. It may be worth rethinking that
requirement.

Ryan says we have space to accommodate projected growth in the region.
Development in Arlington will probably be piecemeal. Our zoning
limits what we can do. We aren't likely to attract any large
companies in the short term, but perhaps in ten years. Residential
land is the most valuable in Arlington. The town will need to have a
value discussion about how to grow the commercial base.

John Worden says it's important to look at schools. He says that RKG
used the wrong numbers in their last report, and asks Don Seltzer to
present the "right ones".

Don Seltzer (public attendee) disagrees with the economic analysis
that RKG presented during our last meeting, and seems intent on giving
them a piece of his mind. He disagrees with the enrollment growth
factor of $7,290 which was provided by the town manager's office;
Mr. Seltzer thinks that figure should be $14,000. He claims that
student enrollment has increased by 12% during the last three years
while the school budget has increased by 24%. He states that the
town's visual budget puts the school cost at $65M, and believes
that's a false representation. He claims there are another $25M in
school expenses from other sources: utilities, retirement, pensions,
the minuteman high school, and debt service for school construction.
He says we've paid for modular classrooms, a Thompson addition, a
Hardy addition, and that we may need another elementary school in the
future.

Erin Zwirko asks if any group members have ideas for public outreach.
Steve suggests tabling on the bikeway, near the industrial districts.
Pam Heidell suggests modeling more real-world scenarios before we
start on outreach efforts. Dave Watson agrees with Ms. Heidell, and
suggests postponing outreach until after town meeting. John Worden
agrees with Mr. Watson.

Erin asks if late May or early June would be appropriate. David
Watson thinks this could be relevant to discussions the Select Board
and ARB are having on housing. Erin suggests that bikeway tabling
could be done in conjunction with outreach efforts for the sustainable
transportation action plan. When we get to this stage, it will be
helpful to have visualizations, etc, to provide a more concrete view
of the proposals.

RKG and Harriman will be back for our April meeting.

Zoning Articles from Citizen Petitions. The select board
hasn't seen the list of zoning articles yet, so Erin feels it would be
premature for a general discussion with this group. Instead, we'll
discuss three articles that were proposed by working group members.

Patricia Worden will be proposing a definition of foundation. John
Worden notes the term isn't defined in our bylaw, and he thinks we
should have a definition. The intent of his second article is to
require a special permit when changing commercial uses to residential
in a mixed use building.

Steve Revilak notes that a similar definition was proposed as an
amendment in the special town meeting of Feb 2018 (which dealt with
zoning recodification). The stated motivation was to provide clarity
for the ZBL provision on large additions. Steve asks if that's still
one of the motivations. John says yes, and that he still wants a
definition.

Christian Klein points out that the defined term is "building
foundation", which is never used in the bylaw; he suggests using the
term "foundation" instead. He points out that the definition uses
the word "structure"; that's a defined term in the bylaw with a
meaning that doesn't fit this definition. Christian states that our
ZBL uses the term "foundation" when describing front lot lines and
front setbacks. He'd like to be sure the new definition will not
change those meanings. He gives John a written copy of a proposed
rewording.

John says the problem is really McMansions, due to permissiveness of
the building inspector.

Steve notes that the definition of foundation doesn't contemplate a
porch that's built on top of the foundation. David Watson asks what
the immediate effect of this change would be. Christian says it could
effect non-conforming structures, and the definition of front building
line. David asks if this would be clearing up an ambiguity or
changing existing practice. Christian says he'd have to check with
the building inspector.

We move on to John's second amendment, requiring a special permit for
conversion of commercial to residential space inside a mixed use
building. John says the only change is that the building owner will
need a special permit.

Christian asks if the special permit would require environmental
design review, since many of our mixed use buildings are on Mass Ave.

Steve is confused by the wording. By his reading, the change would
apply provisions in section 5.4.2 when the alteration was done with a
special permit, and exempt those provisions when the alteration was
done by right. Ralph Wilmer had a different interpretation: he
thought the deciding factor was whether the building was constructed
with a special permit, or was a pre-existing mixed-use.

Steve notes that the ZBL really doesn't say much about use changes
within a mixed use building. For example, suppose we had a mixed use
building with office space and a bakery. The baker retires and the
office tenant takes over the baker's space. That means we'd have a
non-mixed-use building that doesn't necessarily to the dimensional
regulations for single-use structures. John agrees that's an issue,
but not the one he's currently trying to address.

There's a short discussion about Steve's article, which proposes to
rename the terms "Open Space", "Landscaped Open Space", and
"Usable Open Space". He wants to find terms that are closer to the
definitions. John agrees that "landscaped open space" and "usable
open space" are confusing. There's discussion about whether changing
usage of the terms would be within the scope of the article.

Approval of Meeting Minutes. The group approved minutes
from Jan 22nd.

Future Meetings. Our next meeting will be held on March
4th. At that time, we will discuss potential changes to the meeting
schedule, due to staff availability.